Rorschach on Fallout New Vegas
Started by PsyDr
So good, but Fallout 2 is still peak.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
2 was definitely the best of the isometric turn based titles, gotta get that GECK, but I'm with Dazen that New Vegas, with the DLC, is probably my favorite of the franchise.
Lmk if youre serious. Im interested.
Wild takes on here
Fallout 3 was best, I live off the high of Liam Neeson being my father.
Fallout 3 was best, I live off the high of Liam Neeson being my father.
Is rage bait against the SDN rules?
I don't know what you all think, but that first image is definitely two elephants celebrating a win with a trunk high-five.
....it is possible my 4 yo son has taken over my brain and I am no longer capable of providing valid/non-outlying responses to anything anymore?
....it is possible my 4 yo son has taken over my brain and I am no longer capable of providing valid/non-outlying responses to anything anymore?
with gnome hats!
It's been years since I used the Exner system, but iirc that interpretation would score you high points
I have so thoroughly avoided engaging with projective testing over my career I do not even know if this is good or bad. 🤣
Two bears high-fiving
Two bears dancing on a pole
Two rabbits jumping away from one another
From a professional standpoint, good. From an entertainment standpoint, bad.
It's good! Also, I want to clarify that I was forced to give the Rorschach at a practicum. It was not my choice and I was not happy about it, lol.
Hey, no judgment. I know you well enough to not assume you were using it for funsies to diagnose everyone with CPTSD so you can refer them for the gold standard treatment of several decades of integrated psychoanalysis + EMDR + primal scream therapy.
I feel like the Rorschach indicating I'm psychologically healthy might be enough to raise serious questions about its validity on its own?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
We had to learn the Rorschach and TAT, with their scoring systems in grad school. But, we also went over their empirical support, and I don't know a single person from my program who uses either.
Same. We were required to take a class in projective assessment, and it was a complete waste of time.
We had this too, but I actually found with worthwhile as we did a pretty deep dive on the evidence base for and against. so, it was a good, very in-depth, exercise on evaluation of empirical evidence.
I like it for psychosis. Holds up better than mmpi and pai to structure interview criteria. Im impressed by their thoughtfulness as researchers. Though I interviewed with Greg years ago and work with them now, so I may be bias. That said, im not without by self report background.
The psychometric properties certainly seem a fair bit stronger for psychosis than other diagnoses from what I recall (acknowledging that its now been.....~15 years?....since I've looked at it in any detail).
The potential use cases just always seemed exceptionally limited to me. Clinically, I've rarely encountered cases where "Is this psychosis or not?" is: (A) A question that requires in-depth psychological assessment to answer - or frankly even substantive clinical training; or (B) Where the treatment plan would diverge substantially based on whether something is <officially> psychosis or not. I could see conceivable utility for forensic contexts where face validity of self-report assessments is a bigger concern, though I'd think the psychometric demands there should be higher given what is at stake (though I realize that is sadly not how our legal system operates).
Maybe there are settings/use cases I'm not considering or the new data has improved substantially, but that was certainly my take during training. I think my biggest concern was just how endemic it was viewed to training - if it was treated as a niche assessment learned in specialized post-doctoral training for specific settings, I'd take less issue with it. Akin to some uncommon neuropsych assessments people who aren't on a neuropsych path are unlikely to ever encounter. I just never saw any strong rationale to make it part of a core curriculum given it is also incredibly burdensome to learn (and administer/score!) relative to alternatives and the prevalence of misuse is so high.
Last edited:
Id be more worried about misuse of validity scales or other areas, given the frequency of training is fairly low (coverage is common, but usually by people who arent paradigm compliant). I agree the outcome of psychotic diagnosis is not a particularly helpdul, but I have long found a more complex and dynamic process for understanding how people experience the world. In this wat, thought disorder differentiates better from abstraction, which appears not to be handled well in self report pathology associated with that dimension/organic nature, etc.
Frankly, protective techniques are not common in training- particularly not when assessing comprehensive protective methods (what i would consider required for competence efforts); i believe that is more myth than fact. Only about half programs cover it at all. And only about a third of atudents have non class exposure. One in five has ever used it. This doesn't even get to depth of coverage. See Ingram et al 2020 for a national study on assessment training from students. Mihura et al 2017 did training director
I see less constraint (eg not good for diagnoses) for what self report measures. And less thoughtfulness anoit complex process. The difference between io and clinical svt approaches is notable. For instance. And psychosis is clearly not psychosis on them.
We had one class period of our personality class devoted to projectives so that we’d at least be familiar with the most commonly used ones. Never talked about or used them since in my training. That class period was also mostly a conversation about how all ink blots can look like a uterus if you squint hard enough…
Thats unfortunate. Thats sorta the mentality I meant earlier. It doesnt sound like a good faith evidence consideration.
